This meaningless green drivel: Scientist's U-turn on doomsday claims

So a 2 foot rise in ocean levels per century is acceptable. Laughing my ass off. Try again Tom, your source utterly discredited himself, not surprising for one aged 92 years.
 
Rune said:
So a 2 foot rise in ocean levels per century is acceptable. Laughing my ass off. Try again Tom, your source utterly discredited himself, not surprising for one aged 92 years.
Click to expand...

Only a fool would even attempt to ridicule a man such as James Lovelock, the discoverer of the depletion of the ozone layer and a veritable colossus in the scientific world. His farts are more intelligent than anything you've ever said on anything.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Only a fool would even attempt to ridicule a man such as James Lovelock, the discoverer of the depletion of the ozone layer and a veritable colossus in the scientific world. His farts are more intelligent than anything you've ever said on anything.
Click to expand...

Only a fool would blindly rest on the laurels of a 92 year old man's distant past.

So..again, a 2 foot rise in ocean levels per century is acceptable to you?
 
One of the Warmer's arguments that has always amazed me... (coming from 'the smartest people in the world') is this thinking that global warming is causing ice to melt at the polar caps, and the excess water will threaten our coastlines, etc. These images of entire coastal cities under water, due to melting icecaps.... oh, it's so unbearable to even think about, isn't it?

Well guess what, geniuses? IF the polar icecaps were to ever melt significantly enough to engulf a substantial area of coastline, the cooling effects on the ocean convection would cause it to stop functioning as it always has, and everything in the ocean would soon die. Before any coastal city was threatened, the ocean would be a lifeless stagnant pond of water, and we would have MUCH bigger problems than flooded coastal property. The 'scenarios' you've dreamed up, simply can't happen, and won't happen, and IF they DID happen, would cause a great deal more calamity than you have imagined.

The Earth is an amazingly resilient and self-cleaning planet. Decades and centuries of pollution, over-exploiting resources, and man-made catastrophe, are cleaned up and erased in a matter of months by good old Mother Nature. We could completely eliminate the internal combustion engine, and all drive 'green' cars, and do this for a century, and the total cumulative results of this, would be erased with a single volcanic eruption. When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, the amount of debris and ash dispersed into the atmosphere from that ONE eruption, was more harmful and destructive to the planet than all automobiles and factories ever operated in the history of mankind. It's like giving a homeless person a pack of sunflower seeds and believing you've done something to end world hunger!
 
Dixie said:
One of the Warmer's arguments that has always amazed me... (coming from 'the smartest people in the world') is this thinking that global warming is causing ice to melt at the polar caps, and the excess water will threaten our coastlines, etc. These images of entire coastal cities under water, due to melting icecaps.... oh, it's so unbearable to even think about, isn't it?

Well guess what, geniuses? IF the polar icecaps were to ever melt significantly enough to engulf a substantial area of coastline, the cooling effects on the ocean convection would cause it to stop functioning as it always has, and everything in the ocean would soon die. Before any coastal city was threatened, the ocean would be a lifeless stagnant pond of water, and we would have MUCH bigger problems than flooded coastal property. The 'scenarios' you've dreamed up, simply can't happen, and won't happen, and IF they DID happen, would cause a great deal more calamity than you have imagined.

The Earth is an amazingly resilient and self-cleaning planet. Decades and centuries of pollution, over-exploiting resources, and man-made catastrophe, are cleaned up and erased in a matter of months by good old Mother Nature. We could completely eliminate the internal combustion engine, and all drive 'green' cars, and do this for a century, and the total cumulative results of this, would be erased with a single volcanic eruption. When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, the amount of debris and ash dispersed into the atmosphere from that ONE eruption, was more harmful and destructive to the planet than all automobiles and factories ever operated in the history of mankind. It's like giving a homeless person a pack of sunflower seeds and believing you've done something to end world hunger!
Click to expand...

Please provide proof of your theory of the end of ocean currents.
 
Dixie said:
One of the Warmer's arguments that has always amazed me... (coming from 'the smartest people in the world') is this thinking that global warming is causing ice to melt at the polar caps, and the excess water will threaten our coastlines, etc. These images of entire coastal cities under water, due to melting icecaps.... oh, it's so unbearable to even think about, isn't it?

Well guess what, geniuses? IF the polar icecaps were to ever melt significantly enough to engulf a substantial area of coastline, the cooling effects on the ocean convection would cause it to stop functioning as it always has, and everything in the ocean would soon die. Before any coastal city was threatened, the ocean would be a lifeless stagnant pond of water, and we would have MUCH bigger problems than flooded coastal property. The 'scenarios' you've dreamed up, simply can't happen, and won't happen, and IF they DID happen, would cause a great deal more calamity than you have imagined.

The Earth is an amazingly resilient and self-cleaning planet. Decades and centuries of pollution, over-exploiting resources, and man-made catastrophe, are cleaned up and erased in a matter of months by good old Mother Nature. We could completely eliminate the internal combustion engine, and all drive 'green' cars, and do this for a century, and the total cumulative results of this, would be erased with a single volcanic eruption. When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, the amount of debris and ash dispersed into the atmosphere from that ONE eruption, was more harmful and destructive to the planet than all automobiles and factories ever operated in the history of mankind. It's like giving a homeless person a pack of sunflower seeds and believing you've done something to end world hunger!
Click to expand...

2 things stand out for me here. In the 2nd paragraph, the ONLY logic presented for why this can't happen is because it's simply to horrible to imagine. Which is interesting logic.

The 2nd is that the bolded is a phrase that Rush Limbaugh often invokes - it's funny to see it just parrotted like that. There is no basis for it, and no logic to it; we're supposed to just believe it because it makes us feel good to think that the planet can withstand anything we throw at it.

Unfortunately, that just isn't true. We have habitats disappearing at unprecedented rates; species disappearing just as quickly; coral reefs disappearing; ice caps melting; whole areas of the sea rendered uninhabitable for life; drinking water becoming scarce in certain parts of the world; the oceanic food supply not meeting demand anymore; etc.

Try to keep up with current events, Dix. The planet isn't doing so well anymore.
 
Onceler said:
2 things stand out for me here. In the 2nd paragraph, the ONLY logic presented for why this can't happen is because it's simply to horrible to imagine. Which is interesting logic.

The 2nd is that the bolded is a phrase that Rush Limbaugh often invokes - it's funny to see it just parrotted like that. There is no basis for it, and no logic to it; we're supposed to just believe it because it makes us feel good to think that the planet can withstand anything we throw at it.

Unfortunately, that just isn't true. We have habitats disappearing at unprecedented rates; species disappearing just as quickly; coral reefs disappearing; ice caps melting; whole areas of the sea rendered uninhabitable for life; drinking water becoming scarce in certain parts of the world; the oceanic food supply not meeting demand anymore; etc.

Try to keep up with current events, Dix. The planet isn't doing so well anymore.
Click to expand...
Well actually this is a rare occasion in which Rush is actually right about something (I know...hard to believe aint it?). The Earth is amazingly resilient and self cleaning. The problem is, if we humans muck things up to much good ole planet Earth will just self clean us off the planet.
 
Derp Derp said:
Well actually this is a rare occasion in which Rush is actually right about something (I know...hard to believe aint it?). The Earth is amazingly resilient and self cleaning. The problem is, if we humans muck things up to much good ole planet Earth will just self clean us off the planet.
Click to expand...

Oh, good point. Rush right, but you hated typing those words ;)
 
Rune said:
Tom, are 2 foot/century increases in sea levels acceptible?
Click to expand...

It is all about risk analysis and the countless billions that are being thrown at useless windmills, solar panels and carbon credits. He has come to the same conclusion as George Monbiot, the left-wing environmentalist has on nuclear power. Lovelock also said two foot at worst, so of course you naturally ignore the "at worst" part.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/6855/monbiot-joins-lovelock-nuclear-power-camp
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is going to very difficult to dismiss someone with the towering stature of James Lovelock in the scientific world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nt-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html
Click to expand...
Meh, I say let science take it's course. Opinions are like noses. We all have one and they all smell. Maybe Lovelock has changed his point of view but I've been in the field doing real world work for the last 23 years while he's been in academia. I've seen first hand the benefits of green policy from the benefits of sustained development policies which inculcates long term thinking into our infrastructure development, to pollution prevetion regulations which have improved quality of life and health and safety in industrial regions to conservation policies which ensure that future generations will be able to benefit from finite natural resources. So though I do highly regard the work of Lovelock, he is an Ivory Towered Academic. In other words, this article is either quoting him out of context or he has his own reasons for stating a change of thought but it's rather easy to dismiss his comments given to vast mountain of evidence.

I would say that if Mr. Lovelace has the courage of his convictions then he should publish peer reviewed work that discredits the theories he's critical of instead of just throwing darts from the editorial pages of some tabloid rag.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is all about risk analysis and the countless billions that are being thrown at useless windmills, solar panels and carbon credits. He has come to the same conclusion as George Monbiot, the left-wing environmentalist has on nuclear power.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/6855/monbiot-joins-lovelock-nuclear-power-camp
Click to expand...

So, you don't think we should go green, we should continue as we are? I just don't understand how any measure to aid the environment is bad.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It is all about risk analysis and the countless billions that are being thrown at useless windmills, solar panels and carbon credits. He has come to the same conclusion as George Monbiot, the left-wing environmentalist has on nuclear power. Lovelock also said two foot at worst, so of course you naturally ignore the "at worst" part.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/6855/monbiot-joins-lovelock-nuclear-power-camp
Click to expand...
Well what risk are you analyzing Tom? Cost benefit or human health and safety?
 
Derp Derp said:
Meh, I say let science take it's course. Opinions are like noses. We all have one and they all smell. Maybe Lovelock has changed his point of view but I've been in the field doing real world work for the last 23 years while he's been in academia. I've seen first hand the benefits of green policy from the benefits of sustained development policies which inculcates long term thinking into our infrastructure development, to pollution prevetion regulations which have improved quality of life and health and safety in industrial regions to conservation policies which ensure that future generations will be able to benefit from finite natural resources. So though I do highly regard the work of Lovelock, he is an Ivory Towered Academic. In other words, this article is either quoting him out of context or he has his own reasons for stating a change of thought but it's rather easy to dismiss his comments given to vast mountain of evidence.

I would say that if Mr. Lovelace has the courage of his convictions then he should publish peer reviewed work that discredits the theories he's critical of instead of just throwing darts from the editorial pages of some tabloid rag.
Click to expand...

OK Mott, how about if you read the same thing in the Telegraph?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...ut-sea-levels-says-climate-change-expert.html
 
Rana said:
So, you don't think we should go green, we should continue as we are? I just don't understand how any measure to aid the environment is bad.
Click to expand...
It isn't. Trust me. I can remember when you could of had your head up your ass and it would have smelled better than Gary, Indiana or Youngstown, OH and Pittsburgh always had a grey cloud over it and all the houses and buildings were covered in grime and soot or air alerts in Houston and LA from smog where you could get sick from just breathing the air. Those conditions by and large do not exist today and the quality of life and public health have been substantially improved because of so called "green policies".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top